I bought a used 60mm/2.8 macro for $200 (CDN) a couple of months ago. Looks like a really sharp lens. I only used it for a few closeup detail shots. I would love to see a full review and read the opinion of an experience reviewer like Nasim.

Nasim, Very impressive work on lenses and camera reviews…I bought sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art after seeing your review…and thank you for that. My colleague who just bought AF-S 20mm f1.8G and showed me the imatest chart done for this lens…Based on the chart the Sigma seems to be sharper at wide open than this lens at f4…What’s the difference between the charts? Seems to be a pretty sharp lens. Thanks again

Yes, great review, mine arrives today and I’m very excited to use it. I’m putting together an “as light as possible” D810 kit for a trip around the world in January. I am thinking of this lens, the sigma 50 art and the 28-300 to fill in the gaps. I’m shooting family shots, landscape and general tourist type stuff.

We have a very similar setup – I too have a D810 with Sigma 50mm/1.4 (superb lens btw) and I just ordered the Nikkor 20mm/1.8. The reviews I’ve read so far are all positive, and I do need a wide-angle lens to capture interior architecture during my trip to Rome next month. Really excited about this.

And, Mr Mansurov, thank you for this review, it was among those that convinced me to choose this lens!

Thanks for the excellent review. I only really see two photos (same flower?) illustrating bokeh (which does look pretty busy to me). Given that your biggest ding for the lens is bokeh, I’d appreciate a few more examples (which, I know, violates an unstated tendency to only provide wonderful sample images) — including foreground out-of-focus elements.

Tonio, when you deal with aspherical lens elements, bokeh never renders very well, as I stated in the review. Still, out of focus areas do not look as bad as on some zooms, so it is not the end of the day. I will look and see if I can find more examples of bokeh, but seriously – why would you want to use a lens like this for bokeh? Unless you put the lens right next to a subject, getting things out of focus is extremely difficult. Remember, the infinity mark on the lens is a bit over 1 meter, so you have very little room to work with :)

As for examples of flare, I did provide two images under the ghosting and flare section. Flare is handled really well and the provided example is the worst case scenario…

A common use for wide angle lenses is to get really close to a subject and if you’re wide open you’ll get some bokeh whether you want it or not (per your flower shots) so it’s worth noting whether if it’s going to look decent. (I believe the lens focuses down to 5″ (125mm) and in the close-up shots I’ve seen the out-of-focus areas are really quite unattractive. (And the best way to really illustrate this would be to take photographs with out of focus point lights in the background.)

According to this rather detailed article on bokeh — www.vanwalree.com/ — onion rings are caused not so much by the shape of the lens but the grinding method (which is used to obtain the shape) so it’s possible that with sufficiently advanced/expensive grinding process, aspherical lenses could have nice bokeh. Progress is being made in this area, highlighted in this article (which appears to steal quite a bit from the first article): www.imaging-resource.com/news/…ric-lenses

Given this is a new lens, it would be interesting to discover if NIkon had applied the new technology to the aspherical elements, but given how important it is, I imagine they’d invent an acronym for the improved aspherical elements and include it in a gold ring lens first.

Tonio, yes, that’s actually a very common way to use wide angle lenses. However, I am not sure if I agree with the “quite unattractive” comment – I think it looks OK. Not great by any means, but not bad either, as one can see on some lenses.

As for bokeh, aspherical lenses have always shown onion rings in my tests, which is why I have been saying that. But thank you for the links – that was an interesting read! Would be great if Nikon started to grind / mold their lenses differently, similar to what Panasonic has been doing. Sadly, that is not the case with the most recent Nikkor lenses (including the 20mm f/1.8G), so perhaps they will do that in the future…

There are people, such as myself, who buy Nikon DSLRs because we often have a requirement to deliver JPEGs to the client at the end of the shooting session: post-processing is not an option. The extensive range of adjustments provided by Nikon’s in-camera Picture Controls enable the photographer to tailor their images to the requirements of the client.

The D810 includes a “Clarity” adjustment that is absent from my existing bodies therefore this added feature alone made me strongly tempted to purchase a D810 for shooting JPEGs. After very careful consideration, I chose a body that lacks this feature due to its overall performance suitability (for reasons that I’m not prepared to discuss).

JPEG basic is far more than good enough quality for clients to crop/resize the images for display on their website and large-screen HDTVs (even 4k) public displays. I usually deliver JPEG fine because some clients subsequently decide to produce poster prints for displaying to the public.

For some of my other work, I shoot JPEG + RAW.

There are very good reasons why the D810, like other cameras, has a setting to record only JPEGs, jstevez. The use of this setting does not lead to the conclusion that the photographer is a simplistic ass who’s opinions are best avoided.

Thanks for the review. How would the Zeiss 21mm compare to this? I’m thinking on pure sharpness and micro contrast, the Zeiss would be better, but maybe only marginally so. I read some people see a very slight dip in sharpness on this 20mm midway out (about where the DX edge would be). Did you notice that? I think the Nikon would win on handling flare (and obviously weight and cost). But I like the heavier stronger build of Zeiss. Still making up my mind… Dave

Dave, interestingly, I had the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 with me at the time I was testing the 20mm f/1.8G. Since mine came de-centered, I did not use it as much – will need to obtain another copy of the lens to do a full review. But I am currently putting the Imatest results from the lab, so you can see how the sharpness compares. Please note that the corners might not show as good as they should. I will update the results once I have a good copy later next year.

The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is a great lens. It has better colors in my opinion, but microcontrast and sharpness are not better. Plus, you are comparing f/1.8 vs f/2.8 and AF vs MF, so the Nikkor is a stronger choice in those aspects. Zeiss is a much better build and will last forever, compared to the plastic build of the 20mm f/1.8G. Both have their strengths and weaknesses…

Yes, there is a slight dip in sharpness on the 20mm on DX, but it is something you can see in my Imatest results – mid-frame is where approximately DX corners are, so you can see those drops there indeed.

Thank you Nasim for a great review. Could you please explain “Since mine came de-centered, I did not use…”. How does a lens get ‘de-centered’? I mean, by looking at a lens, is it possible to see the de-centering?

Rohinton, sadly, de-centering is fairly common. It can happen when a lens is dropped (during transportation), or sometimes it is just built that way. Usually Zeiss lenses are very good in build quality, so this de-centering I saw was pretty surprising to me…

As for testing for de-centering, it can be done if you want to test, but I would not recommend it. If you go crazy about it, you might suddenly dislike most of the lenses you have, since many lenses suffer from it – some worse than others. While you might not notice it in your images, even slight decentering is bad for providing test data, because it does not reflect the full potential of a lens. When I provide test data, I measure all 4 corners and give an average figure. If only one corner is weaker, it is not bad, but if two corners are bad due to decentering, then the data is inaccurate (that’s what happened with the Zeiss 21mm). I wrote about decentering here: photographylife.com/what-…tered-lens

I have the Zeiss 21 and the build quality just seems better. The hood makes problems, when you drop a metal lens it bends. When you drop a partly plastic lens it bounces. Color, sharpness and contrast are awesome on the Zeiss 21. With a polarizer the colors are mind blowing. But against the sun the lens is no good. I hope that the Nikon 20 1.8 can do these shots

Like many of my fellow photographers out there, I *love* wide angle lenses, in particular the 20 mm and 28 mm focal lengths in the 35 mm format. I use other lenses with a 75-100 degree angle of view in other formats, too. As you nicely point out, Nasim, these lenses are instrumental, versatile, and enjoyable tools for many applications in photography.

I would like to point out to your readers that if you prefer manual focus wide angle primes, then Nikon has excellent and more affordable alternatives. Among the many older offerings that are available, I highly recommend both the Nikkor 20 mm f/2.8 Ais and 28 mm f/2.8 Ais. Both are compact, light weight, made of metal, have excellent manual focus ergonomics, and are very sharp, in particular the latter. I own both of these lenses, which have yielded some great photographs over the years. These lenses are available both new and used. The 20 mm f/2.8 Ais can be had for $649 new and anywhere from $300-500 used. The 28 mm f/2.8 Ais can be had for $499.95 new and $300-350 used.

For those photographers who *really* love wide angle manual focus lenses in an even more compact package, the older 20 mm f/4 Ais is a bargain – provided that you can find it. It’s a (relatively) rare lens on the used market. The caveat with this lens is that it’s nowhere near the performer wide open (at f4, that is) compared to Nikon’s other 20 mm primes; yet stopped down to F8, these lenses are comparable in optical performance. I own this lens (purchased under $200 after a couple of months of searching on-line); it’s a great little lens. Small. Fits in your shirt pocket. Quality build. And super light. A photographer on a budget cannot go wrong with any of these choices. :-)

As a bonus, for those photographers out there who enjoy IR photography (both film and digital), the above manual focus wide angle primes all have IR focus index dots on the focus scales! In addition, the DOF scales are professionally engraved into the metal lens barrel and color-coded.

I have not owned or used the AFD versions of any of these wide angle lenses, so I cannot comment on their value. Honestly though, all of these lenses (new and old, manual focus, AF) are excellent.

And Nasim, I would also kindly point out that these G lenses are fully compatible with Nikon’s advanced film SLRs (e.g., F100, F4, F6) in addition to digital SLRs. I have used my 24 mm f/1.4 G on my F6, which makes superb photographs with this lens, although it is a monster carry around. ;-)

Rick, thank you for the detailed and excellent comment. I agree, many of the old lenses are of great value and they do really well, even on modern high-resolution sensors. As soon as I am done with my current to-do list, I am planning to resume reviewing old Nikkor glass. Some of our readers were very kind to send me old MF lenses last year for testing and I am hoping to get more this year to review!

Great review. I am considering this lens for astro photography. I currently use my 16-35mm f/4 or 28mm f/2.8 but having a f/1.8 lens opens up new possibilities.

You wrote: I agree, many of the old lenses are of great value… …I am planning to resume reviewing old Nikkor glass…

This is a great project—Thank you. I am interested in a review of the Nikon 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom lens with comparisons to the modern 70-200 f/4. While both lenses are sharp, there may be other, subtle differences that would make me consider upgrading.

Another great review! If I were shooting FX, I am pretty sure this would replace the 24mm 1.4. I also loved your recommended lens list but it is aimed at FX, not DX.

For DX, it is not on my list. In the last 18 months I have changed everything. I let go of the Nikkor 24mm 1.4, 35 1.4 and 50 1.4, 24-70 2.8 and just recently the 70-200 2.8. I replaced these lenses with the following: Tokina 11-16 (just got it, haven’t used it yet) Sigma 18-35 1.8 Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art Nikon 70-200 F4 Sigma 17-70 F2.8 – 4.0 (this replaced the superior but much heavier 24-70 as an everyday walk around lens) IMO the Sigma 18-35mm was practically indistinguishable from the Nikkor primes and allowed me to carry one less lens. Obviously, I was trying to get lighter (the glaring exception being the 50mm Art which I find irresistable…)

Sceptical, here is my take on the DX lens choices: Tokina 11-16 – excellent choice. A great and very sharp lens! Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 – can’t say enough good things about it, it is a game changer Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art – you have seen my review :) Nikon 70-200mm f/4 – superb, very lightweight choice and works very well on both FX and DX Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 – never used it before, so I cannot comment yet

Overall, that’s quite a list sir, you definitely know what you are doing!

Thanks for a great review. I have learned so much from this site. I have a 16-35 F4 and understand that as you said these zooms are quite a bit heavier and more expensive than the 20mm prime. Based on this review, I have removed the 24mm 1.4 from my consideration (expense wise in particular). In your experience, how does this new lens compare sharpness wise with the 16-35? I realize that the zoom is 2 stops slower, and value your thoughts on this subject.

Paul, I don’t think it is fare to compare the 16-35mm to the 20mm f/1.8G – they are optically very different (planning to update the review with comparisons to the 16-35mm soon). The 20mm f/1.8G is far better, there is just no comparison. At the same time, the 16-35mm gives a lot of convenience and versatility thanks to its zoom range, so it comes down to what you shoot. If you don’t mind losing 4mm of coverage and moving with your feet, then you will be very happy with the 20mm performance…

I use D800’s and a d3s and I find I spend a lot of my time down at the wide end of things, the very area that manufacturers have great difficulty in making good lenses for. I have painstakingly been putting together a range of lenses that complement the possibilities of the D800 and it has been no easy task and I was down to needing the one remaining lens around this focal length and after seeing the specs, I got lucky and got one of the very few in the country. I was floored by its performance, its absolutely exceptional even wide open. Its hard to believe that it performs as well as it does, but its right up there with the very best with very little difference between wide open to its sharpest aperture.

Well Nasim, I owe you quite a bit, I have relied on your advice in many areas since I decided to get back into photography. I like your reviews as they seem to be spot on and not coloured by prejudices. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for all the hard work you put in and it really has made a difference and is very much appreciated!

Arun, I will do my best to update this review with some comparisons against the common UWA zoom lenses soon. Both of the D750 units I tested were prone to the flare issue, but as I have stated in a separate article, you will rarely ever see the problem – it only happens at a particular angle.

Hi Nasim, thanks for the review that I’m sure many people out there was waiting like myself! Also, like other users, I am also interested in comparing 20mm f/1.8 to Nikon 16-35 f/4 (on Fx cameras). I was wondering what are the pros and cons of each – regardless of price. Please share your thoughts.

Ansh, as soon as I get back, I will have a look at both 16-35mm and 18-35mm data and see if I have any data for 20mm focal length. If I don’t, then I will update the review anyway, with comparisons at closer focal lengths (18mm and 24mm perhaps?). In the meantime, if I do get a hold of these lenses soon, I will try to run another comparison at 20mm. I have not updated older reviews with the most current data, so please do not compare values from this review with old ones yet. I am planning to update all the reviews within the next few weeks with high resolution image samples + most current Imatest data…

Had been deliberating for almost 3 months and read extensively(14-24mm f/2.8 right through to the recently debuted Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC) over the net; ultimately decided on the 20mm f/1.8G ED, got it last evening (07-02-2015). The thing that tipped the balance in it’s favor was the wider aperture and the light weight of having a prime as compared the zooms. It’s very light.

Thanks Nasim, great review with an excellent balance talking about between field and lab performance. I have one of these on my wish-list. Just need to decide whether to sell my 28mm f1.8 which I really enjoy using and replace it with the 35mm f1.8, an arrangement which would be cash flow neutral, as a better companion to the 20mm. Ideally I would then replace the 50mm f1.8 with the 58mm f1.4, but that’s a pretty negative hit to the bank balance.

Bruce, personally, I would go with a 20mm + 35mm f/1.8 instead of a single 28mm for the reasons stated in the review. I am not sure if you would be very happy with the 58mm f/1.4G though – that lens is not for everyone, as it is not about sharpness (it was designed that way). You can read up about the 58mm f/1.4G here at PL – I wrote a review a while ago. Just don’t compare sharpness figures yet, as I will be updating those with the current data pretty soon.

Thanks for another great review, and accompanying photos. I had been waiting for you to review this lens, as it was on my list to acquire after it was introduced. I read Bob Vishneski’s “Initial Impressions” article on the lens, and as I said, was waiting for your full review. I actually decided to purchase this lens about 2 weeks ago, and although I have not yet had the opportunity to use it that much since receiving it, I am genuinely impressed with its performance to date. I also own the Nikon 50mm 1.8G which I am quite pleased with, the Sigma 35mm ART which is an incredibly awesome lens, the Nikon 24-120mm F4G and a ultra-wide Rokinon 14mm 2.8 lens with my D800.

Are you planning on reviewing the new Sigma 150-600mm Sport or contemporary lenses, and possibly do a comparison to the Tamron 150-600?

I look forward to more great gear reviews and articles from PL on all aspects of photography, and I am sure 2015 will not disappoint. Happy New Year!

Vinnie, that’s a pretty impressive list of lenses you got there! Would love to hear your thoughts on the 20mm f/1.8G after you use it.

Yes, I am planning to review the Sigma 150-600mm as soon as possible. I have a few projects to finish first though. I have all the test data for the Tamron 150-600mm, so I will be updating that review fairly soon too.

Thank you Nasim great review. However what really surprises me the optical performance of the 20/1.8 c/w the 24/1.4, 28/1.8, Zeiss 21! Have the 24, 28 in question as well as the 14-24 and 18-35G so I was going to pass on this new 20 but if this performance is indeed true I may have to reconsider.

John, the 20mm f/1.8G is a very sharp lens optically. I was pretty surprised to see that it was sharper than many other UWA lenses I have tested so far myself – great value given the price. If you have a chance, rent it for a couple of days and you will see what I mean.

Thank you for a great review. I was worried that this lens would have the same issues with focus shift and field curvature as the 28 mm f1.8. Relieved that I don’t have to worry about that.

Regarding the vignetting; I looked through the sample images, but I didn’t notice any issues. Have the images been corrected with Lightroom’s lens profile? I thought a 3 ev drop in the corners would be pretty obvious.

Pehr, if you look at the vignetting page where I show how the light falls off in an image, you will see that the falloff is very gradual, so it is not bad. I usually don’t apply mass-vignetting corrections in Lightroom, because Adobe does a pretty poor job sometimes. Some images do look pretty even and that’s the result of cropping rather than Lightroom corrections…

Thanks for the review Nasim. I’ve been toying around whether to get this or not since I sold my 14-24 a few months ago. Now I decided to order it from Amazon.de where it had the lowest euro price I’ve seen so far.

One thing though: you say that the lens is weather sealed. The phoblographer claims it doesn’t. Only either one of you can have it correct…

Matti, I never said that the lens is weather sealed – I only said that there is a rubber gasket that provides protection against dust. The lens itself is not weather sealed. In fact, none of the modern Nikon primes are weather sealed…

If you are reasonably happy with the results from your 20 mm f/2.8 AF then I feel that you could regret spending money on an upgrade. I have the manual focus version of this lens and it has produced some really good images: it’s not bitingly sharp at f/2.8, but for my purposes this is a non-issue.

Everyone has different requirements. I prefer to spend my limited budget on adding items that increases the flexibility of my kit, rather than on improving the performance of individual items in my existing kit.

Peter, if you have ~$500-600 to spend, and do a lot of astrophotography then I say go for it (difference between selling your 20 f/2.8D and buying the 20 f/1.8G). Last July I did a time lapse shoot for the Science channel and used their 20mm f/2.8D, the coma was so bad I had to crop it out. of the final scene. This version is just so much better and is now my favorite astrophotography lens.

Hi Nasim, This is my first comment, but i have been reading your reviews for more that a year now. Thanks to you i have bought the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8g that i enjoy a lot. Regarding this review, i was anxious because i want to purchase a wide angle for my kit but i needed a very good review that i could trust. Thank You and keep up the good work!

Thanks for the review! Regarding the shot demonstrating vignetting when using Lee filter holder, was there just one round filter on the lens or were there two? My understanding is that there was only one round filter plus the Lee holder; please correct me if I’m wrong. My usual set-up when shooting landscapes is lens > round ND filter > Cokin Z-Pro filter ring and holder > Lee GND. I’m eager to test how much vignetting this configuration will produce on the 20mm 1.8G but it is not available in any store where I live. Thanks so much!

Nasim, many thanks for detailed review! How would you compare this with 16-35/f4 in terms of IQ at f4 to 8 ? I use D800 and I am wondering whether switching to Nikkor 20/1.8 and Sigma 35/1.4 would improve IQ. I use 20mm mostly architecture and 35 for reportage and (less often) for portraits.

Thank you for the excellent review Nisam. I bought the 20mm f/1.8 today and took it out at sunset for its first light on my D810. First impressions are that its a very good lens. Sharp, fast auto focus, and easy manual focus. It produces big clean sun stars! Looking forward to some astrophotography with it.

Thanks for another excellent review. I’ve had the 14-24 for a few years and am happy with it, but am considering this lens for it’s portability. I don’t travel by air with the 14-24 often, it’s size and weight with the Fotodiox filter system don’t lend itself to compactness. I am curious how this 20mm compares with the 14-24 at 20mm, I’ve seen some subjective reports that suggest it’s better but nothing as detailed as your reviews. I saw in one of your replies you mentioned the Tamron 150-600 update is coming – I’ll thank you in advance for that one, looking forward to it.

Hello Nasim, I am looking into getting a D750 and a 20mm prime so I found this review extremely helpful. I was wondering if you could tell me more about the setup for one of the images in the sample images. The image with the female in maroon dress and male in striped shirt holding a beer on dance floor. I really like this look and wondering if you had on camera flash with some sort of diffusion or was it off camera on edge of dance floor? I am assuming there is flash bc there appears to be a catch light in the eyes.

Thank you for all of your post, they are by far the best compared to others online.

Great review as always and I found it most valuable for me compared with others sites.

I almost pull stringer for this lens until I read your review of Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC. Now I’m torn between these 2 lenses and can I have your suggestion for this, with my photography is travel and landscape and my gears are D750 + Nik 24-120 f/4 + 35 f/1.8 G + 85 f/1.8 G

I use the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for most versatility at events. Not needed much by way of UWA zoom capability up to now so passed on the 14-24. In terms of primes (which I use mostly on the second body for indoors at events and for food) I use the Nikon 50mm and 35 mm 1.8g and the Micro 105 2.8. Have pondered switching the 50mm out for a Sigma Art and may, at some stage add the Nikon 85mm 1.8. Trouble is, I can’t find much of a use for it at the moment so it’s been on hold.

I dabble somewhat in landscape work now (mostly with the 24-70) and at times it’s useful to have wider than 24 and also the 1.8 aperture for indoor low light. So I’ve been swaying back and forth between the 20, 24 and 28 focal lengths. Having the 35mm the 28 maybe doesn’t bring enough to the game. This 20mm though really appeals :)

I was pondering over buying a 24mm f/1.4 or 20mm f/1.4 Sigma Art lens and I then I saw this article. I really want to go for the 20mm, but I will not be able to protect the front element. Are there any suggestions on what I can do?

Yet another very interesting and (wide)eye opening article :-) But it leaves me with a question as I am looking to expand my actual lens set-up.

I work with my beloved D7100 which I bought a few months ago along with a kit lens 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. Although – as an enthusiast amateur – I am quiet satisfied with this versatile all-round lens, I start to experience the need to explore further. I feel limited with what I want to achieve in my photography (landscape, architecture etc).

Since my D7100 is DX, I was extremely interested in this 20mm f/1.8G ED to get a better prime wide angle. In addition, if I am to invest in lenses, it might as well be in FX lenses for a potential future shift to FX camera.

But then in my search for the “perfect” purchase, I came across the Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm F4.0 G IF-ED DX. This also caught my eye, as it was reviewed as a very good lens built especially for DX cameras. Although not an FX lens, it looks more of a professional lens with its fixed aperture. (and price!)

Have you ever reviewed this lens? I was wondering if you could provide me with some insight and advice with this “dilemma” of purchasing a new lens? Or maybe, my search is not broad enough and you might have any other suggestion as wide angle for landscape and city architecture to be used on D7100?

Christian, I once owned a 12-24mm lens. It is not a bad lens, but it is DX. With your potential future move to FX, you will have to deal with selling that lens. I will be honest with you, I really don’t have much faith in DX. Unless Nikon figures out a way to make DX mirrorless, I would not invest in DX glass at this point. You will lose quite a bit in the long term by trying to do that. You know you will be moving up to FX, so why invest so heavily in something you will be getting rid of? I would stick with FX glass when possible, however, there is one problem – there is currently no FX glass that covers the same equivalent range as 12-24mm. The 14-24mm is big, heavy and expensive! My suggestion would be to temporarily invest in something much cheaper – get the Tokina 11-16mm. At $450 right now, it is a lens with phenomenal value. And the Tokina will resale at least for $200-300 later on, so you won’t lose as much as you would lose on the 12-24mm.

Hi Nasim, Thanks a bunch for your valuable feedback, very much appreciated! Your suggestion and advice is very clear, it puts things in a new very helpful perspective. I’ll keep you posted! All the best, Christian

HI Nasim, great review, thanks for taking the the time to do it. I am in the market for a wide angle, i have narrowed the search down to the nikon 20mm 1.8G, nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5G and the sigma 18-35 1.8 art. They all around the same price point. My struggle is that i need the wide end for landscapes and cityscapes but i need it to also double as all around walking/tourist lens. Heading to Paris in a few weeks and space and weight is a factor. They all have great reviews but i am not sure the nikon 20 would work as a walkabout/street lens, while the nikon 18-35 is rated high not sure about the 3.5-4.5 aspect. I like the option of really shallow DOF on the fixed ones. As for the sigma i included it after reading your review. Also i shoot with nikon d700(got it at a really great deal under $500 with less that 1500 shots). Please let me know your thoughts. I would really appreciate it. Cheers Lujah

I am in same boat as you were in March. I am looking to get a wide angle lens and currently debating 24mm f1.8 and 16-35mm f4. I am very interested in knowing how you decided and which lens you finally went for.

Thanks for reviewing Nikons wide angle primes at f/1.8. I see that you gave a rating of 4.3 for 20mm f/1.8 and 4.7 for 24mm f/1.8. You also say that 20mm f/1.8 is a gem. Which of these do you recommend for buying? I shoot Nikon D7000 and have Nikkors 50mm f/1.8G; 18-105mm f3.5-5.6; 70-300mm f4-5.6 and 200mm f4 AI. I recently bought a Nikon D700 and am trying to add a wide angle lens to my existing lenses. Thanks in advance.

I’m one of your fans, I read all you review about Digital camera and lens, The most part which I’m interesting in while I reading your review is the photo that you capture that is your secret , recipe , the way that you process the photo by LightRoom.

I’m thinking to buy DSLR camera from Nikon and lens, to get a great image sharpness I need good lens I’m thinking in D5500 for my budget and the rest of money for lens the problem in crop factor camera is the focal length will be multiplying by 1.5 so there is no real 28mm or 35mm lens on APSc camera from Nikon, After Two years of search I find the best solution is to use 20mm or 24mm FX lens like

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED Lens

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED

These Two lenses will give me focal length 30mm and 36mm , I don’t care about the 6mm difference between them

you make a review for both , and now I want to ask you and take your opinion to choice between them which one of these lenses will be the sharpest on Nikon D5500 and has less problem like ghosting and flaring, Chromatic Absorption

Today I went in my local photographic shop to look at the Nikon 20mm lens with a view to buying one, principally for astro photography. While there I was also shown the Sigma 20mm Art f1.4 lens that seems to be a vey solid piece of kit, especially as the Nikon is very much more plastiky and light in comparison. Results wise how do they compare? is one noticeably better than the other?

Question for you — I bought this lens hoping to grab some great low-light photobooth shots (and then later use it for night cityscapes and landscapes) however the consistence of the shots at the corers came out horrible on my D750. If you, or anyone on here doesnt mind taking a look I posted them on Flickr under christopher.jeffry #christorita – www.flickr.com/photo…fry/albums

Most are cropped down from 20mm. User error? Any suggestions are appreciated – did I get bad glass? Something else?

Thank you for this informative article. Maybe you could help me out a little bit?

In fact, I bought the 20mm f1.8 as a future investment 2 years ago and up until now used in on a DX body.

Since I plan switching to full-frame very soon, I wonder which lens might be better suited for me: The 24-70mm or the 14-24mm. I will definitely get the 50mm f1.4 plus I already own the 70-200mm f4. I often find myself in small Japanese gardens and interiors, but I also do lots of landscape (especially in the mountains, at lakes, etc.). Since both are quite expensive lenses, I wonder what makes more sense. The extra-wide angle of the 14mm I find myself missing quite a few times with my current (DX 16-85mm, being roughly 24-105mm) standard lens or the more “standard” 24-70mm.

Congrats for your very helpful website and thank you too for your nice reviews. I would like to ask you a question. I’m looking for a wide angle to start in night sky landscape photography and i hesitate between AF-S 20mm F1.8 and AF-S 24mm F1.8 (my DSLR body is a D750). According to you, which of both would be the best choice? Thank you in advance. Best regards from France!

Hi. Great review! I am looking for some advice. I have a Nikon D750. I bought it for my pursuit of astrophotography. I purchased it with a kit lens (AF-S 24-120 f/4 G ED VR), which isn’t ideal for night, obviously. I want to buy a good wide angle prime in the $1000 (Canadian) range. This lens seems to check all of the boxes for shooting in low light, Milky Way, northern lights, etc. I have been looking at: AF FX Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, newer Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 SP and (this lens) the AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G ED. The AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G ED is what I am leaning toward, which is what led me to this review. I have read in other reviews though that it can be difficult to achieve sharp focus at night and that it’s tricky ‘not’ to knock it out of focus. Have you done some more sampling at night? I prefer to stick with a Nikkor lens, but wonder if a different wide prime would be a better option (in keeping with my budget of $1000 Cdn)? Help? I won’t be in a position to purchase another lens for a while, so I want to make the right decision and make this investment count.

The only thing that may outshine the lens is the review! So much information, presented so well, directed to a very sharp conclusion. For anyone even remotely considering the 20mm 1.8G, the fire has been lit!

I owned a D700 and owned both 35mm 1.8G FX and 28mm 1.8G FX and looking to sell the 28mm because I’m more of a 35mm shooter. What do you recommend, 24 1.8G or 20 1.8G? I’m just a hobbyist, taking travel photos and family events, weddings etc. I’m not a wildlife, sports or studio photographer.﻿

Hi Wanda, From your choice, the best lens (most light gathering ability) should be the Sigma 20mm f/1.4, but it is slightly above your budget, much heavier and bulky compared to the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.4, and three times more expensive than the Rokinon. The Nikon 20mm f/1.8 will be just about within your budget, has lots of excellent reviews and examples of astrophotography, has slightly more coma in the corners, but is small and lightweight, and can be used for many other purposes (e.g. your D750 can be switched to 1.2X or 1.5X crop sensor, allowing this autofocus lens also to be a “24mm” or a “30mm” lens). The Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 is much cheaper, is also small and lightweight, has much wider angle of view (35 seconds maximum exposure time), has easier manual focusing abilities, but much less aperture for light gathering, and does not have autofocus (not ideal for other applications of fast photography). I personally purchased the Nikon, because I preferred a smaller and lighter lens for traveling, the quality of pictures are about the same as the other lenses, but this lens is also more versatile for other purposes and types of photography. The 28mm f/1.8 lens will not be a good choice for astrophotography (15 seconds maximum exposure time = least amount of light gathering).

i’m leaving for india in a couple of days, i am carrying nikon d810 with 20mm, 50mm both f1.8 with polarisers , tokina 100mm f2.8 macro, and 70-300, f4-5.6 vc along with sb800, thinking on 24-85 f3.5-4.5 vr, what do you suggest? in india i have 35-70 f2.8d in case i need, your guidance needed asap, leaving on 8th june planning on doing street, environmental, indoor without flash , macro of flora in lower himalays, some distant landscapes of peaks,, have sony rx1 too

thanks for detailed review, i’m leaving for india in a couple of days, i am carrying nikon d810 with 20mm, 50mm both f1.8 with polarisers , tokina 100mm f2.8 macro, and 70-300, f4-5.6 vc along with sb800, thinking on 24-85 f3.5-4.5 vr, what do you suggest? in india i have 35-70 f2.8d in case i need, your guidance needed asap, leaving on 8th june planning on doing street, environmental, indoor without flash , macro of flora in lower himalays, some distant landscapes of peaks,, have sony rx1 too

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.